Nonviolent Revolution: Does it Have a Chance in the US

The America we live in today isn't the one our ancestors knew. We live in a society with constant stimulation at our fingertips, and the things that affected our ancestors seem common fare today. So, that being said, does anyone think peaceful protest would work today? Would the sight of starving protesters bound together in a hunger strike bring about sympathy in the common American, or a scornful confusion. Would watching passive protesters taking a beating from police officers breed outrage, or fear?

Revolutions are fought firstly in the hearts and minds of citizens, so tell me, where are you on this subject?

Originally posted by RatoAstuto
The America we live in today isn't the one our ancestors knew. We live in a society with constant stimulation at our fingertips, and the things that affected our ancestors seem common fare today. So, that being said, does anyone think peaceful protest would work today? Would the sight of starving protesters bound together in a hunger strike bring about sympathy in the common American, or a scornful confusion. Would watching passive protesters taking a beating from police officers breed outrage, or fear?

Revolutions are fought firstly in the hearts and minds of citizens, so tell me, where are you on this subject?

Loosing, as it isn't as much fun as watching American idol or whatever the koolaid drinkers are doing these days.

True story

No.

Violent revolution does not work, just look at how the Arab Spring turned out. Nonviolent revolution does not work, look at how OWS turned out.

The only way to change America is to pay off the whores in congress; beat the corporate entities running our country through a proxy at their own game. This would require, of course, a great deal of money. I think our best bet is to patiently wait for this accursed generation in power to die out and slowly rebuild our country.

Originally posted by DestroyDestroyDestroy
No.

Violent revolution does not work, just look at how the Arab Spring turned out. Nonviolent revolution does not work, look at how OWS turned out.

The only way to change America is to pay off the whores in congress; beat the corporate entities running our country through a proxy at their own game. This would require, of course, a great deal of money. I think our best bet is to patiently wait for this accursed generation in power to die out and slowly rebuild our country.

It is all the fault of the baby boomers, they let things get this way, they are now running the show, they refuse to change the rules or the game.

I am so disappointed, whatever happened to the hardcore do the right thing types from when they were kids?

Did they all finally give up or what?

reply to post by RatoAstuto


If a generation of people keep being told that violence isn't the answer (whats the question??) they will believe it.
If you say something over and over again...people think its true even if its a lie.

So to answer the question....no.

I can't tell you what is or is not the answer if we don't even know what the question even is.

The funny part is,after all these years,governments use violence to keep people down and conquer other nations but tell you its not the answer while using it themselves.

I don't mean to brag but OWS didn't work because ATS ruled against it.
Back before I was a member I remember reading a chain of threads that did it.

The membership had some serious doubts about that specific movement.
They wanted to join in but dubious backing was sniffed out.
The epicenter of the public not supporting it,
I think,
started it's migration across the net here.

Either way,
it's possible that if one builds
a nonviolent movement
and it actually gets
consensus here

I think the net
and America will be for it.


Mike Grouchy

reply to post by DrumsRfun


The only non-violent thing that would work, is if everyone did not pay their mortgage and credit card payments to the big criminal banks - Citibank, JPMorgan, HSBC, Wells Fargo, ect.

reply to post by mikegrouchy


I try not to base my views on what atsers think.
I don't give them that much clout at the end of the day.

If all ats members wanted to jump off a bridge,would you follow??

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

I try not to base my views on what atsers think.
I don't give them that much clout at the end of the day.

If all ats members wanted to jump off a bridge,would you follow??

Do we get to keep our tin foil hats on?

Originally posted by DrumsRfun
reply to post by mikegrouchy

 

I try not to base my views on what atsers think.
I don't give them that much clout at the end of the day.

If [color=gold] all ats members wanted to jump off a bridge,would you follow??

Ask me that
when they all want to do it.

Till then I feel it is our civic duty
to at least get qualified as a marksman
at the firing range, even If I don't plan to buy one.

I think it is a civic duty because
if someone finds a sidearm I don't
want them to accidently hurt themselves.

Or me.
This is still a dangerous country.
The wild west may be over for our owners.
But I know enough that if someone even pretends
to point a piece at me, I'm already moving for cover.


Mike Grouchy

Originally posted by Happy1
reply to post by DrumsRfun

 

The only non-violent thing that would work, is if everyone did not pay their mortgage and credit card payments to the big criminal banks - Citibank, JPMorgan, HSBC, Wells Fargo, ect.

I second that. Empowering the masses is the way to go. Get them organised.

Set up networks to co-ordinate the moving of those homeless and powerless into houses that are abandoned and unoccupied. Bus them to mass sit-ins, protests, or whatever, nearest to them and show them local power rules. Sporadic occupations will exhaust the law enforcement.

Instill into them the spirit of AHIMSA and turn all of them into Gandhis and Martin Luther Kings. FEMA camps won't be able to handle them concurrently.

reply to post by RatoAstuto


Yes. It does. What we have to do is wait for the current government to implode and step in to take over.

Start locally.

Just be prepared. Nonviolent doesn't mean WON'T be violent if it is called for.

But always start with an open hand, not a fist.

reply to post by beezzer

Just be prepared. Nonviolent doesn't mean WON'T be violent if it is called for.

Are you sure you understand the concept of non-violence?

Nonviolence...

...is the practice of being harmless to self and others under every condition. It comes from the belief that hurting people, animals or the environment is unnecessary to achieve an outcome and refers to a general philosophy of abstention from violence based on moral, religious or spiritual principles. [1]

It's just non-violence, not: non-violence - unless...

:-)

just sayin'

reply to post by RatoAstuto

My answer to your question is - no

Revolution in this country comes from the barrel of a gun - even if it's all talk right now

Unless we want to talk about what the word revolution actually means. In that case, enormous, important and beneficial changes can come without so much as a slap

I honestly do not think it's possible and I don't believe it will ever happen. Take a look around, what do you see? People who are too busy keeping up with Twitter or Facebook or American Idol to worry about what's going on right under their noses. Rights being infringed or outright ignored by TPTB. As long as they can park their fat ass on the couch and watch football or Dancing With The Stars, everything is good, life goes on. If something happens to interfere with that, then they wake up and whine. But just long enough to solve their own little problem, then it's back to the couch. Look at how many are happy to sit back, draw welfare and food stamps, but don't care that it's the rest of the country that has to pay for it, as long as they get theirs. Until we, as a group, tell them ENOUGH!, it will continue. But, we won't.

A revolution needs a point. Normaly they are proceeded by extreme poverty where life is very hard. Thus the reason for a revolt of any kind. That we live with more peace, prosperity and freedom than any Americans before us kind makes a reason for a revolt DOA. People never have and never will be happy with their gov, thats just human nature. Is that enough to put someone else in charge who we will also be unhappy with, I doubt it.

Historically there have been nonviolent revolutions, which have served their purpose. Although these need very strong charismatic leaders, who would be able to persuade lots of people and create a very powerful patriotic atmosphere and feeling of community.

Violent revolution would be absolute stupidity and have disastrous effects on the nation.

Although from my perspective I truly do not see any real reason for revolution.

Originally posted by RatoAstuto
The America we live in today isn't the one our ancestors knew. We live in a society with constant stimulation at our fingertips, and the things that affected our ancestors seem common fare today. So, that being said, does anyone think peaceful protest would work today? Would the sight of starving protesters bound together in a hunger strike bring about sympathy in the common American, or a scornful confusion. Would watching passive protesters taking a beating from police officers breed outrage, or fear?

Revolutions are fought firstly in the hearts and minds of citizens, so tell me, where are you on this subject?

I believe that the way to win a non violent revolution is to purposely break the machine. The machine is fueled by money which leads to greed. You really can’t have one without the other. Not all are greedy but where there is money you will find greed.

Because of our technological advances we now live in a controlled economy and not a free economy. In a controlled economy everything is controlled by large corporations. The corporations have become so powerful that they control the food supplies, they control the distribution of new technologies, they even control the distribution of life saving medicines.

We have the technologies and/or the capabilities to develop technology to eliminate most of the worlds problems. Why don’t we go 100% solar where it is feasible? Why do we continue to not grow food on farms in states where agriculture is plentiful? It is all about the money. Greed has replaced our desire to pursue loving and helping one another.

They cant release the Iphone 50 not because they have not already developed it but because they suppress the technology to maintain the ability to release it an intervals that satisfy our need for new and there desire for profit.

How do we win. Stop buying what they are selling. Collapse the economy. If the American worker ever completely stopped buying except for the basics, and I mean we have to cook our own food, truly the basics. Over a short period of time the money on our paychecks and in our accounts would cause the machine to break.

If I don’t spend my money at the store and no one else does eventually all profits will be returned to the employee through payroll. The companies will not be able to fire us fast enough to keep up. Even if they do massive unemployment would still break the machine.

If a leader were to ever rise up with this attitude I imagine he would see only two possibilities. The first reconciliation through peace. Someone who has the charisma to change the culture from one by the dollar, for the dollar, to one that is truly by the people for the people. If something is for the benefit of all love should conquer greed and all should benefit. Currently we suppress new technologies, price them out of the range of all. We are for profit which leads to for Greed.

When one profits off his own idea with the work of his own hands than I would say it can be argued that his profits are deserved. But corporations buy us and own the intellectual ideas that we create. This means that the one who invents the cure to cancer, will himself be an average person with an average income. But the corporation will become a machine of Greed concerned not with curing cancer but with the financial benefit that can be made off the profit of curing cancer.

The other way to a non violent take over is to stop buying what they are selling and simply take the money away from the corporations and refuse to give it back until they agree to change. America is a government by the people for the people. Unfortunately America has become a government by the corporation for the corporation. Unions were supposed to ensure that the distribution of funds was applied in such a way that the gap between management and employee stayed reasonable. Without the employee who produces the management that sells has no value. Corporations are for profit only, reducing wages within the bulk of the work force, manufacturing, is a sure way to make more money.

The problem, where there is money there is greed. The unions that were supposed to stand up to the unfair practices became corrupt in and amongst themselves. The union leaders are just as bad as the corporations as they continue to take money away from the one who is doing the work.

If we stop buying what they sell than we take away the fuel from the machine. Money is the fuel. We can choose to keep it or spend it. We really don’t need 90% of what we buy.

Originally posted by RatoAstuto
does anyone think peaceful protest would work today?

Not me.

Would the sight of starving protesters bound together in a hunger strike bring about sympathy in the common American, or a scornful confusion.

I am not sure what it would bring, but I do know that after our bought and paid for media got finished spinning the story and telling everyone what to think about it, it would not bring about anything of significance.

Would watching passive protesters taking a beating from police officers breed outrage, or fear?

Like this at the London G20 in 2009?


Or like this Lady in Miami in early 2000?


How about the 1999 WTO protest in Seattle?


Of course we also can not forget the fun to be had at the G20 Protest in Toronto or Pittsburgh, or any number of OWS protest that took place across the Country. So quite frankly, I think it is safe to say we have already seen Police beat the crap out of peaceful protesters. For some it did breed outrage. For others it did breed fear. Either way, what has changed? I would say the only thing that has truly changed is the overall awareness of people. Unfortunately, it seems the collective still have not figured out what to do about it or they simply still mysteriously some how believe that our Political System is not corrupt and they will one day get to elect a Superman who will save us all. In any event, if this were to be the catalyst for Revolution, then we have already missed that chance or we still have many more beatings to endure before we figure out the problem.

Originally posted by mikegrouchy
I don't mean to brag but OWS didn't work because ATS ruled against it.
Back before I was a member I remember reading a chain of threads that did it.

The membership had some serious doubts about that specific movement.
They wanted to join in but dubious backing was sniffed out.
The epicenter of the public not supporting it,
I think,
started it's migration across the net here.

Either way,
it's possible that if one builds
a nonviolent movement
and it actually gets
consensus here

I think the net
and America will be for it.

Mike Grouchy

OWS was a sham movement, there are many threads on ATS about people being paid to protest, private interest groups becoming tangled with the movement, and so on. It was also leaderless and disorganized, allowing government agents to infiltrate it and instigate violence at rallies.

The biggest problem any kind of resistance movement faces, peaceful or otherwise, is information control; when the media paints a movement in a negative light, it often loses public support. The internet, however, has made controlling information very difficult, so we are seeing a shift in public trust from media outlets towards social networks and alternative media sources (i.e. livestreams, twitter, facebook, etc. As it becomes harder to control information, it becomes easier for there to be a successful resistance movement.

Of course, a successful revolution is often the worst thing that can happen to a country. Rapid change, power vacuums, complete chaos, and a long period of instability are the only things we can reap from a revolution.

For this reason, a revolution, peaceful or violent, is not the solution. All change must be gradual; the America we have today has been decades in the making; you can't restore the balance by dropping a proverbial boulder on a proverbial seesaw, you must restore the balance by adding small increments of weight.